According to the article, PCG spent $20,000,000 on this project. As PCG has approximately 6,000 members (including those outside the USA), this equates to something like $3,000 for almost every attendee. ... Even if PCG has more people, the focus on the building seems disproportionate, but that is apparently PCG’s priority.

Now that is a disturbing, and sad, thought for the unfortunate PCG members, who are forbidden by the PCG cult from contacting ex-members or members of other COGs and are discouraged from using medicine.

Friday, July 30, 2010

It is not true, as I have heard every now and then, that Social Security is going to go bankrupt. Just found this, Top 5 Social Security Myths.

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. [More on that here.] If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

Although there are other problems out there I am glad we can relax about that particular issue.

Monday, July 26, 2010

In their coverage of politics PCG has chosen to embrace a very right wing viewpoint.

Here I shall discuss two issues which show PCG's right wing leaning in regards to politics. These are the positions that PCG chose to take on these issues and has chosen to promote among their followers.

When Arizona recently passed its harsh legislation against undocumented migrants, PCG chose to be sympathetic to those supporting that law and criticize those who oppose this law.

White males have taken a beating in recent weeks. First it was legislators in Arizona, branded as Nazis in some quarters, because they had the gall to clamp down on illegal immigration. Then it was Arizonans in general, labeled as racist for supporting tougher legislation, even though this majority support included many Hispanics—those who are legal citizens of Arizona. (Stephen Flurry, 'Watch Out for White Men,' May 7, 2010.)

The mayor of Phoenix called the measure “racist and unjust.” Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said the bill effectively “sanctions” racial profiling....

Even President Obama hastily joined in on the chorus of criticism against the Arizona law. Within hours of Governor Brewer signing the bill, Obama scolded Arizona lawmakers for their “misguided” work. He said it threatens to undermine the “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

Should the law be enforced, President Obama envisioned life for Hispanic Americans to be something like this: “Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed—that’s something that could potentially happen.”...

That’s what much of the backlash against the Arizona law amounts to: stirring up racial discord....rather than do something about the mounting danger, America’s leadership is instead lighting the fuse of a much more explosive time bomb. (Stephen Flurry, 'How Arizona’s Immigration Bill Sparks Racial Hate,' July, 2010, Philadelphia Trumpet.)

Stephen Flurry denounces those who criticize the law as "race baiters".

Small wonder that 70 percent of Arizonans support the new immigration bill.... But not the race baiters. They see the law’s passage as yet another opportunity to fan the flames of racial hatred and division. (Stephen Flurry, 'Playing the Race Card in Arizona' April 30, 2010.)

PCG's hard right approach to news may also be seen in how they approach news from Israel.

During that horrible incident aboard the Mavi Marmara in which IDF soldiers boarded the boat in international waters and in the confrontation nine activists were shot by IDF soldiers and died. Israel does have a right to exist and to protect themselves but I do not feel that those two legitimate goals apply or excuse this terrible and shocking incident. PCG chose to give their sympathy to the state of Israel and dismiss the protesters on the flotilla as 'terrorists'.

Personally I am disturbed at how little compassion is expressed here for those who perished and their loved ones.

The terrorists who sponsored the Gaza-bound “humanitarian” mission earlier this week got exactly what they were aiming for: a lethal retaliation from Israel’s navy, followed by a tidal wave of international outrage against Israel. It doesn’t matter that 50 passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were linked to terror groups, or that the “peace activists” attacked Israeli commandos with metal rods, broken bottles, knives and stun grenades, or that three of the Turks killed by Israeli commandos actually wanted to die as martyrs, or that investigators discovered bulletproof vests, night vision goggles and gas masks on board the ship.

All that matters is that Israel, once again, is the bad guy. (Stephen Flurry, 'Israel the Outcast', June 4, 2010.)

What about the fact that nine unarmed men died? How can Stephen Flurry say "All that matters is that Israel, once again, is the bad guy" and thereby ignore all these heart breaking facts?The Mavi Marmara is also discussed in Joel Hilliker's column A Good Excuse to End a Bad Relationship. What I notice about this column is that he seems to ignore the possibility that people would be genuinely angry that nine unarmed lives have been ended by armed IDF soldiers and portrays the Turkish government's condemnation as simply an excuse being used by Turkey's leaders to scuttle friendly relations with Israel. He also alludes to HWA's doctrine (taken from various strands of British Israelism) that Turkey is descended from the nation of Edom. This idea was taught by one M. M. Eshelman who identified the Turks as Edom.

Nothing does that better than some telegenic anti-Israel protests—over Turks having been killed by Israeli soldiers, no less.

In this way, the flotilla incident was a slam-dunk.

The folks who organized it knew what they were doing. The Turkish group that staged the “humanitarian” mission to Gaza had ties to terrorist networks. It invited dozens of terrorists with ties to Iran, Hamas and al Qaeda to participate. It specifically sought to bust a naval blockade solely intended to limit Hamas’s ability to turn the Gaza Strip into a military bunker. It forced a confrontation, banking on the ability to turn it into a public relations disaster for the Jews.

Israel could see what was coming. Before the convoy set sail, Israeli leaders pleaded with Turkish officials to stop it; they offered to allow the supplies to be delivered through an Israeli checkpoint. But Erdoğan’s government let it go anyway. Thus, Israel had no choice but to intervene directly. And those on the boat made sure it turned violent.

Now, Turkey is milking the event for all it’s worth. It accused Israel of state-sponsored terrorism.

And so those are some political positions which PCG has chosen to produce for their followers and sympathizers.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

I remember one time during my brief encounter with PCG that Gerald Flurry hosted one Key of David presentation in which he implied that Mullah Omar, leader of the pre-9/11 Taliban regime in Afghanistan, was demon possessed. He cited some report that Omar was riding a motorbike, having epileptic fits, and barked like a dog, if I recall correctly.

I have absolutely no way to verify what Gerald Flurry said. It is just a memory I have.

I do believe that demon possession is possible, but such concepts should be used with great restraint. I shudder to think how this idea could be abused in the dictatorial environment of so many COGs.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

In it he mentions the story about an activist from the New Black Panther Party intimidating voters in the 2008 election. He also mentions J. Christian Adams who says that the Department of Justice is ignoring civil rights cases when white people are victimized.

This column exposes how PCG thoughtlessly parrots the line from right wing media outlets. I would like to state here that there are other hate groups out there that are more numerous than this small group, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, or even the COGs embarrassing racist cousins, so-called "Christian Identity".

As far as I am concerned this story is simply being strategically used by the right wing media, which PCG thoughtlessly imitates, to discredit the Obama Administration.

The forces of the right are doing their very hardest to ruin the Obama Administration. PCG adopts their pessimistic viewpoint to create fear in their followers in order for following to cling to PCG ever more.

Why are some right wing media outlets devoting so much attention to this story? Because they want to discredit the Obama Administration.

I would greatly encourage anyone to take a look at how Media Matters covers this story. Among the things that are mentioned are that some of the Minutemen also engaged in this sort of voter intimidation during the 2006 elections. Why haven't the media treated this story the same way? Because they could not use it against Obama.

Also it was the Bush Administration Department of Justice which decided to not pursue voter intimidation charges against this New Black Panther Party member.

Compared with the other racist groups out there this so called New Black Panther Party is quite small and insignificant. Alas within our free societies there are people who spread racial hatred like a drug. They always say outrageous and disgusting things against the targets of their hatred. They are always there. Every society harbors some extremists within its midst.

It is sad, (well I think it's sad,) how PCG have chosen to toe the line set by the right wing media so closely they are willing to just parrot this latest talking point so effortlessly and unthinkingly. They don't even bother being imaginative about this matter. The New Black Panthers are a threat Morley's column declares. What about the Ku Klux Klan? The Neo-Nazis? "Christian Identity"? Aren't they a threat too?

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

LCG's July 8, 2010 Weekly Update has a news bulletin suggesting that Jesus did not die on a cross. This idea, like so much of HWA's ideas, come straight from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have taught that Jesus did not die on a cross since around the 1930s.

Here is what LCG's Weekly Update says:

Christ Probably Did not Die on a Cross. In a recent dissertation study at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, pastor Gunnar Samuelsson spent 400 pages describing the “Crucifixion in Antiquity.” His findings bear out what God’s Church has known and taught for decades—that Jesus Christ likely did not die on a “t-shaped” cross. As a devout evangelical preacher and believer in the “power of the Cross,” what Samuelsson discovered shockedhim! In his in-depth research, he could find no clear references to the t-shaped cross. Samuelsson noted in an ABC News interview that “…for generations people have misinterpreted and mistranslated the Greek word ‘stauros’ [translated cross in most Bibles] to mean crucifix, when really the term just means a suspension device, which might have been anything such as a ‘pole or tree trunk’” (www.whas11.com, July 2, 2010). Although the information presented by Samuelsson has been known by scholars and God’s Church for decades, it is interesting to see it highlighted in the media. Satan, in his craftiness, has deceived people into believing and even worshiping the crucifix—rubbing likenesses of it, kneeling before it and even making it into religious jewelry. Sadly, not only do many people bow before an image, which God forbids (Deuteronomy 5:8), the crucifix is probably not even an accurate portrayal of the instrument of Christ’s death.

Again HWA took this idea from the Jehovah's Witnesses who use this idea to persuade followers to lose any lose for the Cross and view any Christian who uses it as false Christians which makes it necessary to follow the Watchtower Cult.

Why would HWA derive this teaching from a known cult? Ironically, what HWA didn’t know was that the Watchtower Society lied about the cross of Christ to their own members. In their "Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," the Watchtower Society intentionally misquoted Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius (Joost Lips), in his book, "De Cruse Liber Primus" while deceptively displaying only one of the three illustrations shown in this book.15 The first illustration shows a man being crucified on a single beam, with his hands nailed above his head. The next two illustrations in Lipsius’ book—which were deliberately omitted by the Watchtower Society—show the correct cross upon which Jesus was crucified. Lipsius states that four pieces of wood were used: The upright stake, the crossbar in which his hands were nailed in an outstretched position, the piece of wood above the crossbar which contained the entitled superscription ("JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"), and the final piece of wood fastened below for his feet. Justus Lipsius affirms that Jesus was nailed to a cross as displayed in the latter two illustrations, and not on a simple stake as shown in the first. HWA never realized that he was being duped by the Watchtower Society while he was gleaning his doctrines! The Interlinear is not available to the general public,16so HWA was never aware of how the Watchtower Society lied about this particular teaching.

As an antidote to this attempt by LCG to alienate you from any Christian who uses the cross, take a look at this article, Cross or Stake?, which shows that, contrary to the Watchtower's constant assertions, there is plenty of evidence to believe that Jesus did indeed die on a cross.

Here's one small sample from this article:

It was not until well into the time of Rutherford in the 1930's that the anti-cross teaching was developed. Rutherford started to promote the view of several Protestant preachers that the word stauros was not known as cross until Constantine introduced it 300 years after Jesus death. This was supposedly done by Constantine to make Christianity more appealing to the Pagans that were already using the cross as a symbol. This article shows that this is not borne out by history. There is ample evidence that..."

In this article the author presents evidence to show that

"in Jesus' time stauros could refer to a cross,"

"the cross was a common form of torture,"

"that Jesus was crucified and Christians were identified by the symbol of a cross 200 years prior to Constantine."

"Most importantly, Scriptural references to Jesus death show that he was on a cross."

Here's some of the Scriptural evidence he presents:

Look at the number of nails in each picture. [This is after he has shown a tradition portrayal of the Crucifixion and one from the Watchtower.] Notice in the above depiction from the Watchtower publication ... there is only one nail and it goes through the wrist and not the hands, due to it being a stake, not a cross. Compare this to what Thomas stated at John 20:25;

"unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe".

Jesus was crucified with two nails, one in each hand, not a single nail through the wrist. That separate nails were in each hand is made clear by the use of the word 'nails' not 'nail'. This suggests that Jesus had his arms separated on a cross, not together on a stake as represented in Watchtower publications.

Matthew 27:37 also supports the idea of a cross rather than a stake when it says;

"Above his head they had put the charge against him in writing: 'THIS IS JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS' ".

In the picture of the crucifixion the plaque is above Jesus head, whereas in the Watchtower representation it is necessarily above his hands. If Jesus were impaled on a stake it would be stated that the titilus was placed above his hands, not his head. J. H. Bernard observes that this scripture "suggests that the cross was of the shape called crux immissa, with a cross-bar for the arms, as painters have generally represented it to be" (A Critical & Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 1929, Vol. 2, p. 628).

The idea that Jesus did not die on a cross is simply used by the Watchtower and Armstrongites to alienate people from any and all Christians who use the Cross as a symbol and to force those people to rely only on their particular non-Cross using group.

The outrageous nature of this quote of Darrell W. Conder's hatred of Jews deserve its own entry. It is so vicious.

Men like [John] Hagee and [Pat] Robertson are a very real threat to world peace. They are at least unknowingly serving an agenda [which is earlier identified as "an Israeli-New World Order agenda"] that seeks to establish a new world order—one that will relegate the suffering, destruction and death of World War II to a footnote of history. (November 2009 commentary.)

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

The United Arab Emirates have decided to inspect any ships from Iran lest they carry any contraband and froze 41 bank accounts connected to Iran. As reported byBernard-Henri Lévy in his article The Arab World Against Ahmadinejad?

Lévy also mentions that during the time of the assassination of Hamas operative Mahmud al-Mabhuh, the UAE was working with Israel to secure their borders from possible mischief by Iran.

And he cites the claim that Saudi Arabia has allowed Israeli jets (Yes-what was called the "Zionist entity" by many Arabs) to use its airspace. This has since been denied by the Saudis but Lévy seems unconvinced.

He concludes:

First of all, [these events are important] because it reminds those who refuse to observe the fact that Islam is not a bloc. Islam of peace exists, vs Islam of war; moderate Islam vs fanatical Islam; and, of course, in this case, Sunni Islam vs Shiite Islamor, [sic] to be exact, vs this heresy of Shi'ism that is the apocalyptic Islam of the loonies and the gangsters who, a year ago, stole their vote from the Iranians.

And then, it demonstrates as well that the front of refusal against the Iranian regime and its plans for total war is growing larger and taking shape and consistency.

This is a good point. For us Westerners we may know the difference between the French and the Spanish, but we often are unable to see the diversity within the Dar al-Islam.

I mention this because PCG claims that Iran will become the King of the South and lead a great Muslim entity which will a) play a role in destroying the USA, Britain and Israel in the Great Tribulation and b) eventually provoke the European Beast Power to wage war against the King of the South and to over run it and quickly seize control over them.

While there was some tentative declarations in old WCG that there would be a future Muslim power in the future it was Gerald Flurry who declared that Iran would be the King of the South.

These recent events suggest that Flurry was totally wrong to make this prediction.

I wonder, when he declared Iran to be the King of the South sometime in the 1990s, if he knew the differences that exist between Iran and the rest of the various Arab states. Iran is predominently Shi'ite, and because of this many Arab states have been quite suspicious and fearful of Iran.

Lévy's news is not much of a surprise to me since there has been bad relations between various Arab states and Iran. The Arab states fear Iran's power and wish to counteract it.

This is contrary to what Flurry "prophesized."

The idea that Iran will lead a vast Muslim power in the end time just seems extremely unlikely. The Iranians are not Arabs, Iran is a theocratic and authoritarian republic never seen before which the monarchies and secular republics of the Arab states, as far as I can see, have no wish to imitate. Why would they follow Iran?

I cannot help but wonder whether Gerald Flurry was aware of these things when he declared that Iran is the King of the South sometime in the early 1990s. Would he have said that if he knew these things?

This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.

This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say....

But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations.

That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper, article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one.

At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congress perpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz 1976) -- no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy.

When reading these lying words note how they keep comparing the Holocaust to movies as though it was all just made up.

(They also claim the movies are controlled by Jews or those under their influence. As is typical among anti-Semites they view everything evil as being caused, ultimately, by Jews.)

Conder makes his opinion clear in these sickening words. This is from his June, 2009 commentary which condemns Hate Speech Legislation as an attempt by Jews to stifle criticism in order to for the Jews to take over the world.

the Holocaust is not quite the tale promoted in countless multi-million dollar Hollywood films, television productions, newspaper and magazine articles and books. Nope! Today honest scholarship and a handful of honest scholars hang over the tale of the Holocaust industry and Zionist aims like a Damocles Sword.

Now, no one disputes that Jews were systematically rounded up and deported from Germany and the conquered territories, and that many died tragic deaths. [This is just deceptive rhetoric to obscure the absurdity and venom of his current views. Also note how he subtly omits the Nazis' genocidal intentions.] But today an ever-growing number of brave historians are disputing the official Holocaust tale by citing documents [He then cites a document first used by the Holocaust Denier Rassinier to say 'only' 1.5 million Jews died]. Indeed, some historians have found evidence that brings even that revised figure into question, and argue for a death toll dipping down to a few hundred thousand. [Perhaps he is thinking of the so-called Institute for Historical Review, that infamous font of Holocaust Denial, which at one time claimed 'only' 300,000 Jews had died.]

This is from his November 2009 commentary. This is his kooky explanation as to how some Christians came to support the cause of creating a Jewish state.

But then came the "Holocaust." European Christians, as well as American Christians—because they allegedly stood by and did nothing—had the blood of "six million" dead Jews on their hands. Forget the other 100 million or so other people who were murdered in the 20th century by despots like Lenin & Stalin, [Conder has just accused the Jews of creating Marxist-Leninist Communism. He also ignores the fact that the USA soon turned against the USSR after World War II and did all they could to restrain their influence.] the Christian owed world Jewry big time for the "Holocaust"—for "six million" dead, a number that has been long discredited as ridiculously high. And thus was born Israel.

By the time of the Sixties, Hollywood, which was completely owned and controlled by Jews, [elsewhere he says Jews controlled Hollywood since the 1920s] combined with the publishing industry, which was itself either owned or at least controlled by Jews, and the news media, which was either owned or controlled by Jews, started a non-stop campaign of rubbing the world's face in the Holocaust. Year after year, movies, books and articles highlighted the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of Christian Europe. Yes, by then the Jews had their own country, which America helped them steal from the Palestinians, but that was only a drop in the bucket. The "Holocaust" was turned into a shrine before which the world would need to continually bow with supplication and offering.

What actually caused people to call for the creation of a Jewish state was the Dreyfus Trial in France and the pogroms in Russia. These events at the turn of the 20th century spurred the creation of the Zionist movement.

This is from Linda Packer's August 2006 commentary. At the start of it she details how she used to have positive views of the Jews. This is done to obscure her present rabid anti-Semitic view that Jews control society and the media and are plotting to take over the world and create a New World Order.

I read and believed the stories about Anne Frank, [and of other Nazi atrocities.] I believed the movies as though they were actual footage. [She earlier mentioned watching Fiddler on the Roof (1971), a movie about Jews enduring pogroms in Tsarist Russia.]

The most common complaint against the diary is that it contains writing in a ballpoint pen, and that ballpoints were not popular until after Anne's death. This is a fraudulent but persistent myth. The only ballpoint ink in the diary were on slips of paper known to be inserted by someone other than Anne anyway. The writings of Anne herself are, needless to say, not in ballpoint.

It is sad to imagine that these people have been fooled and corrupted by such transparent falsehoods.

Notice how they keep comparing the Holocaust to movies. How they pretend that fictional movies are somehow fooling people about what happened. They want us to deny what really happened.

Conder numerous times accuses Jews of controlling the media, a common lie often used by anti-Semites to demonize Jews. "For decades an insidious enemy has had virtual control over what America reads, hears and thinks,..." (August 2009 commentary.) If anyone argues against him he can just say you're being fooled by the Jews.

And as if that is not enough, he accuses Jews of striving to unleash their own Holocaust.

In his November 2009 commentary he comments how some among the American religious right are very supportive of Israel.

Men like [John] Hagee and [Pat] Robertson are a very real threat to world peace. They are at least unknowingly serving [If they are unknowingly serving a Jewish agenda than evidence Hagee and Robertson produce to say they not being controlled by Jews will be safely ignored.] an agenda that seeks to establish a new world order—one that will relegate the suffering, destruction and death of World War II to a footnote of history.

That is an outrageous statement. It is not enough for him to deny what actually happened in the Holocaust, he accuses the Jews of seeking to create their own Holocaust.

When I see that statement I truly wonder if there is any limit to this man's hatred.

Now why would Conder embrace Holocaust Denial? Now this will require some speculation on my part.

I think he has embraced Holocaust Denial in order to make his ludicrous accusation that the Jews are plotting to take over the world and create a New World Order more believable.

Somehow he decided to embrace the idea that Jews are plotting to conquer the world and that they already control the media, the judiciary, the legislature, publishing, etc. But if were to admit that six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust then this fact made it harder for him to believe in the Jewish World Conspiracy Theory. There was cognitive dissonance between the facts of the Holocaust and his desire to believe the Jewish World Conspiracy Theory.

Conder's answer to this was to embrace Holocaust Denial. This way he could relieve himself of the burden of accussing the kin of the victims of that greatest of atrocities. Furthermore he could even use the Holocaust against the Jews, as Holocaust Deniers have always done, and cite as an .

The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history. After all, the Holocaust has generally been recognized as one of the most terrible crimes that ever took place, and surely the very emblem of evil in the modern age. If that crime was a direct result of anti-Semitism taken to its logical end, then anti-Semitism itself, even when expressed in private conversation, is inevitably discredited among most people. [Anti-Semitism has to bear responsibility for that event.] What better way to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, make anti-Semitic arguments seem once again respectable in civilized discourse and even make it acceptable for governments to pursue anti-Semitic policies than by convincing the world that the great crime for which anti-Semitism was blamed simply never happened -- indeed, that it was nothing more than a frame-up invented by the Jews, and propagated by them through their control of the media? What better way, in short, to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism than by denying the Holocaust? (Source.)

And this is exactly what Darrell W. Conder has chosen to do.

Here are more words to consider. They quite accurately describe Darrell W. Conder and Linda Packer.

Jews are thus depicted as manipulative and powerful conspirators who have fabricated myths of their own suffering for their own ends. According to the Holocaust deniers, by forging evidence and mounting a massive propaganda effort, the Jews have established their lies as ‘truth’ and reaped enormous rewards from doing so: for example, in making financial claims on Germany and acquiring international support for Israel. (The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial?, JPR report #3, 2000.)

They [Holocaust deniers] picture a vast shadowy conspiracy that controls and manipulates the institutions of education, culture, the media and government in order to disseminate a pernicious mythology. The purpose of this Holocaust mythology, they assert, is the inculcation of a sense of guilt....Those who can make others feel guilty have power over them and can make them do their bidding. This power is used to advance an international Jewish agenda centered in the Zionist enterprise of the State of Israel. (Introduction: Denial as Anti-Semitism, "Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda", Anti-Defamation League, 2001.)

It's as though these writers are describing Conder himself! But they are not. They are describing other Holocaust Deniers. This only shows how thoroughly Conder has embraced the spirit of Holocaust Denial and how enthusiastically he has imitated them.

It's really is quite a pathetic picture to see these persons embracing such transparent falsehoods.

I bring this up because Darrell W. Conder, who denies Christ, in his June 2009 commentary, which condemned the introduction of Hate Speech which Conder ridiculously views as an attempt by Jews to stifle criticism of their (fictional) attempts to take over the world, cited a column by Joel Stein and offered it as proof that Jews dominate Hollywood and the media. Here are Conder's words. I have highlighting his disgusting, anti-Semitic paranoia.

Back when Hollywood was in its infancy, Zionists [in other places Conder says Jews took over Hollywood] took complete control of the new motion picture industry because they recognized the tremendous potential. Never in the history of the world was a propaganda tool more powerful than motion pictures. Once in control these new self-appointed lords of public opinion recreated the Western world. Today Hollywood Zionists can truly boast that they have recreated America in their image and after their likeness. If you doubt me, take a look at the December 19, 2008 column by well-known Los Angeles Times writer Joel Stein. ... Let me give you a dose of Stein's bragging:

To me it seems Stein's just having a laugh. It's satire.

As Mr. Stein says, Zionists not only control Hollywood, they control the major television networks, the banking and financial systems and the judiciary and legislative branches of the federal government. [Just how paranoid can you get?] Moreover, their brothers-in-arms have almost the same dictatorial control in those nations that have passed hate crime legislation. But, the only thing that is standing in the way of the final implementation of a New World Order is First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And the only thing that has kept these two amendments from biting the dust is the tremendous informational network called the Internet, which isn't yet under Zionist control. [He must mean the various hate sites out there.] On the Net, 24/7, Americans can say and write anything they damn well please and hundreds of millions from around the world are listening and watching! That is why American hate speech legislation is vital to the New World Order and why it has been on the agenda for decades.

It should also be noted that this column has been used by anti-Semitic haters, such as Ku Klux Klan wizard David Duke, white supremacists, and Illuminati conspiracy theorists to spread the lie that Jews control the media.

This video [another video that need not concern us] demonstrates a common thread in anti-Semitism, in which someone lists disproportionate numbers of Jews in the banking sector [or the media in Conder's case] as proof of a conspiracy.

What such arguments presume is that there should be ethnic equality in industry. This equality, however, is absent from reality. Disproportionate representation is the norm across the world.

In the United States, for instance, African-American athletes are overrepresented in professional athletics while Caucasians dominate management. This is not the result of a conspiracy. Japanese farmers dominate agriculture in Brazil, Chinese Malaysians dominate the financial industry in Malaysia [and Indonesia I may add], and Indians dominate retail in Uganda and Kenya.

Each of these results has a distinct reason, none of which include a conspiracy. The case of Jews in the banking sector has its own history dating back to European anti-Semitism that forced Jews into specific industries, among them banking.

Singling out Jews for dominating an industry in the face of minorities dominating others is classic anti-Semitism. It ignores both the history that led to this result and the reality of disproportionate ethnic representation among industries.

Darrell W. Conder's associate and occasional writer on the website, Linda Packer, also repeats this vicious accusation, which is made to demonize Jews and to make us fear them as trying to take over the world, in a particular frightful and horrific commentary published in December, 2009.

Here Linda Packer argues (rather badly) that Jews are over represented in management position over large media companies. This is part of the anti-Semitic accusation that "Jews" control the media.

Have you caught on by now that the 1.5% of Jews in America are rather over-represented at the helms of major media....Are you starting to think now? Are you starting to think about why you are so conditioned? Could it be that a certain ethnic group that controls the media in this country has worked mighty hard over the years to condition you?

This accusation has often been made by anti-Semites against Jews.

For the better part of this century, anti-Semites have alleged that American Jews have conspired with their co-religionists to "control" the motion picture industry in the United States.

The assertion that Jews "control" Hollywood, the media, banking and finance, among other things, is an anti-Semitic canard which dates back more than 70 years to an anti-Jewish campaign waged in the 1920s by the Dearborn Independent, a long-defunct publication backed by the late industrialist Henry Ford Sr. The Dearborn Independent had mounted a seven-year anti-Semitic campaign based on the notorious and [plagiarized fabrication], The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. (Source.)

(Incidently, this is the real reason Conder accuses Jews of controlling Hollywood from its infancy ("Back when Hollywood was in its infancy, Zionists took complete control of the new motion picture industry"-Conder), because he has accepted the Dearborn Independent's hateful accusations that Jews control Hollywood.)

As is common among anti-Semites, Packer makes no consideration of the fact that these persons are individuals pursuing their own separate interests. They act as individuals working for their own companies, which are composed of Jews and Gentiles; not as part of a collective cabal trying to conquer the world.

"Though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not." In fact, Hollywood studios are publicly owned corporations and motion pictures are made by the efforts of individual men and women, some of whom are Jewish, many of whom are not....

Generally, Jews involve themselves in non-religious and non-political activity as individuals, not as Jews....In other words, American Jews have as much right as any other citizens of the United States to work in the motion picture business, in the entertainment industry, and in any other legitimate businesses. Moreover, it bears repeating that those Jews who involve themselves in the motion picture industry do so as individuals, not as representatives of their religious group or with an aim to act in some coordinated conspiratorial manner. (Source.)

As mentioned above ethnic disproportionate representation in just about any area of work is a simple reality. Also there have been many Jews who have been quite scathing towards the State of Israel. There is no Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

The accusation that Jews control Hollywood is simply a lie that anti-Semites have used for almost a hundred years to demonize the Jewish people. Sadly Darrell W. Conder and Linda Packer have chosen to spread this vicious lie.

If You are new please read this

Hand in Hand for Syria

Keep Somalia's Remittances Open

I encourage readers to sign this petition from Oxfam calling upon the U.S. government to let the Somali diaspora continue to send remittance to their loved ones in Somalia.

Moves have been made to shut down such remittances from Somalis in America. Many Somalis need these remittances. The remittances to Somalia are larger than foreign aid contributions and are a lifeline to these people caught in trouble and turmoil.

It is true that HWA said that some Eastern European states would break away from Moscow's orbit and join the European Empire he said would arise at any moment. But he never talked of the Soviet Union collapsing. He did not teach that. Also he portrayed the rise of the European Empire to be far quicker then what has actually happened. In Mystery of the Ages Christ was supposed to return by 2005 at the most.

So assertions that the fall of the Berlin Wall somehow prove that HWA was right is just complete nonsense spread by people who, for whatever reason, are still in denial that HWA was a false prophet who merely talked out of his own "human reasoning".

Truth about Roderick C. Meredith

What sort of man is he? A man who could say things like this.

"Mr. Armstrong has reminded us again that we are to disfellowship any members who attend GTA's [Garner Ted Armstrong's] campaigns, church services or other meetings. Some of our weaker members apparently do not realize that this man is in direct rebellion against God and His government! We must not allow them, or ourselves, to rationalize about this matter, to try to "help the underdog," or in any other way lend support to one whose gross immorality, whose long standing "play acting" and hypocrisy, and whose direct insubordination to the Government of God has long been and is now a source of confusion and DIVISION among God's people. So, as per Mr. Armstrong's instruction, I charge and exhort every one of you faithful ministers of the living Christ to explain this in no uncertain terms to your members, to warn them about this cause of division and then to disfellowship any who consort with GTA or any of his fellows." (Roderick C. Meredith, Pastor's Report, May 21, 1979, pp. 1-2.)

David Robinson on Roderick C. Meredith

"During the ten years I have been an employee of the Worldwide Church, you have been poorly spoken of by most of the ministers and employees I have known. I vividly remember the absolute unbounded glee that was openly expressed by a good number of respected men in the church when you were first "shanghaied." [In 1972.] I could begin by naming names, which I am sure would shock you. I was one of the few who stood, where possible, for you. Your tenure as superintendent of ministers, as I believe the office was then called, was looked on as nightmarish. While you held office during the years of growth, most of those whom I know gave you very little credit for that growth. Almost everyone whom I know, whether they be former friends of yours, or continuing foes, recalls insensitive and terrible things you have done. Without exception, at least among my acquaintances, they all credit you with an unbridled lust for power and list you as one who is willing to pay the price of gaining that power, no matter what. I have, through many of the last few years, believed you had principles you would not violate. Many a man of experience in the church assured me of my error. Events have proven me wrong and them right. Mr. Armstrong has himself been widely quoted as saying of you that you were so righteous that you were so "righteous you were unrighteous." " (David Robinson, Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web, Chapter 16, p. 207.)

Of course it is impossible for me to personally verify these assertions but people deserve to know what this knowledgeable man had to say about him.